Newfie - "I would be happier at $100/bbl oil." The problem with that is the instability it brings to the entire system. Both good and bad (long term) for the oil patch. The better approach IMHO would have been years ago to start slowly increasing motor fuel taxes. That would have eventually encouraged conservation but could have been suspended when outside forces increased the price and hurt our economy.

I've said it for years: the oil patch would have fair much better without the lows AND THE HIGHS of oil prices. The volatility is as difficult to deal with as it is for the consumers.

.@ Rockman , sure , taxes on petrol are a good conservation idea and a powerful financial stream of money for deficit running governments

but don't hang your hat on taxes slowing down when price of crude rise , in extravagantly taxed Europe , when there was a rise , the government would blame the Sheiks , when there was a drop , the government would creep up the taxes

sparky - One nice aspect of a high motor fuel tax is the ability to suspend much/all of it when oil prices spike. It won't hurt the conservation effort if the net price doesn't. And it provided something of a buffer to lessen the impact on the economy. And the best thing: with less impact on the economy it gives the feds less incentive to lower interest rates which, in addition to hurting savings interest rates it make easier for companies to borrow more money to drill more wells which would produce more oil which would eventually lower the price of oil which would encourage higher consumption.